The present invention relates to the scheduling of movement of plural units through a complex movement defining system, and in the embodiment disclosed, to the scheduling of the movement of freight trains over a railroad system.
Today's freight railroads consist of three primary components (1) a rail infrastructure, including track, switches, a communications system and a control system; (2) rolling stock, including locomotives and cars; and, (3) personnel (or crew) that operate and maintain the railway. Generally, each of these components are employed by the use of a high level schedule which assigns people, locomotives, and cars to the various sections of track and allows them to move over that track in a manner that avoids collisions and permits the railway system to deliver goods to various destinations. A basic limitation of the present system is the lack of actual control over the movement of the trains.
Generally, the trains in presently operating systems are indirectly controlled in a gross sense using the services of a dispatcher who sets signals at periodic intervals on the track, but the actual control of the train is left to the engineer operating the train. Because compliance with the schedule is, in large part, the prerogative of the engineers, it is difficult to maintain a very precise schedule. As one result, it is presently estimated that the average utilization of locomotives in the United States is less than 50%. If a better utilization of these capital assets can be attained, the overall cost effectiveness of the rail system will accordingly increases.
Another reason that the train schedules have not heretofore been very precise is that it has been difficult to account for all the factors that affect the movement of the train when attempting to set up a schedule. These difficulties include the complexities of including in the schedule the determination the effects of physical limits of power and mass, the speed limits, the limits due to the signaling system, and the limits due to safe train handling practices (which include those practices associated with applying power and breaking in such a manner as to avoid instability of the train structure and hence derailments).
There are two significant advantages that would be associated with having precise scheduling: (1) precise scheduling would allow a better utilization of the resources and associated increase in total throughput (the trains being optimally spaced and optimally merged together to form an almost continuous flow of traffic), and, (2) to predict within very small limits the arrival times of trains at their destination.
This arrival time in the railroad industry is often referred to as "service reliability" and has, itself, a two fold impact: (1) it provides the customer with assurance as to precisely when his cargo is going to reach its destination; and (2) for intermediate points along the movement of the trains it allows the planning of those terminus resources to be much more efficient.
For example, if the terminus of a given run is an interchange yard, and the yardmaster has prior knowledge of the order and timing of the arrivals of a train, he can set up the yard to accept those trains and make sure that the appropriate sidings are available to hold those trains and those sections of cars (or blocks of cars) in an favorable manner. In contrast, unscheduled or loosely scheduled systems result in trains arriving at an interchange yard in somewhat random order, which prevents the yardmaster from setting up the actual sidings, runs and equipment which will be required to optimally switch the cars to be picked up for the next run beyond that interchange yard.
Similarly, if the terminus is a port where there is unloading equipment involved, and removing the cargo from the train and transferring it to ships requires a set of resources that must be planned for the cargo, the knowledge of the arrival time and the order and sequence of arrival becomes extremely important in achieving an efficient use of terminal equipment and facilities.
For a complete understanding of the present invention, it is helpful to understand some of the factors which inhibit the efficiency of prior art transportation systems, particularly railway systems. Presently, trains operate between many terminal points generally carrying the goods of others from one terminal to another. Trains may also be hauling empty cars back to a terminal for reloading and may be carrying equipment or personnel to perform maintenance along the railway. Often, freight railways share the track with passenger railways.
Freight service in present railways often has regularly scheduled trains operating between various terminals. However, the make up of the trains varies widely from one trip to another. Further, the length, mass, and operating characteristics of the freight trains will vary substantially as customers' requirements for carriage among the various terminals and the equipment utilized often vary substantially. Freight trains may also be operated on an ad hoc basis to satisfy the varying requirements of the train's customers for carriage. Accordingly, from day to day, there are a substantial changes in the schedule and make up of freight trains operating on a particular railway system.
To meet the substantially varying needs for freight rail carriage, railway systems generally have a fixed number of resources. For example, any particular railway system generally has a signal network of track, a finite number of locomotives, a finite number of crews, and other similar limitations in the railway systems which can be used to meet the varying customer requirements.
The difficulties in meeting the customers' requirements of a freight railway system are often exacerbated by the fact that many railway systems have long sections of track bed on which only one main track is laid. Because the railway system generally has to operate trains in both directions along such single track sections, the railway system must attempt to avoid scheduling two trains so that they occupy the same track at the same time, and must put into place systems and procedures to identify such collision possibilities and to take some action to avoid them.
Similarly, when trains are running along a single track, a relatively fast train may approach from behind a relatively slower train travelling in the same direction. Generally, the railway system must both attempt to schedule such trains in a way that the faster train will be permitted to pass the slower train and to identify during the operation of the trains any situation in which one train is approaching a collision to the rear of another train.
Situations in which two trains meet head on or in a passing situation are often handled by the railway system by the use of relatively short track segments or "sidings" on which one or more trains may be diverted off of the main track while another train passes. After the train is safely passed on the main track, the diverted train may then be permitted to return on its journey on the main track. In the railway industry, such situations are called "meet and pass" situations. Obviously, meet and pass operations can significantly offset the ability of any train to meet a particular schedule.
With reference to FIG. 1, a general system for managing meet and pass situations may include a main track 10, a side track 20 which is selectively utilized through switches 22. The switches may be manually operated or may be remotely operated through a central control point for each segment of track known generally as a HUT 24. The HUT 24 may receive signals from track sensors 26 which indicate the presence of a train on a section of track. The train system may also include aspects 28 which are illuminated lamp systems indicating to the engineer on a given train whether or not the segments of rail immediately in front of the train and the next segment beyond are clear of traffic. Typically, in present railway systems, the operation of the aspects 28 is controlled primarily by track sensors 26 and a suitable electronic control logic in the HUT 24.
Generally, train detection sensors 26 operate along a length of track which may be as short as a half mile and may be in excess of two miles. Longitudinally adjacent sections of track are isolated into separate segments by discontinuing the track for a brief length, on the order of one quarter inch, and, optionally, placing an electrical insulator in the gap between the segments. In this way each segment of track is electrically isolated from longitudinally adjacent segments.
A voltage differential is applied between the two rails of a track and when a train is present, the metal wheels and axle of the trains serve as a conductor electrically connecting, or shorting, one of the rails of the track to the other rail, an electrical condition which can be sensed by the track sensor 26 and indicated to the HUT 24.
In present systems, the track sensors 26 between control points such as switches, are often OR'd together in the signal provided to the HUT 24. Thus, the HUT 24 is able to determine if a block of track between control points is occupied, but may not be able to determine which segment(s) within that block of track holds the train.
The HUT 24 may send information regarding various of the conditions supplied to it from the various sensors to a central dispatch facility 30 by the way of a code line 32. The present systems, as described above, provides positive separation between trains so long as the engineer obeys the light signals of the aspects 28.
One difficultly known in present railway systems such as that shown in FIG. 1 is the lack of precise information as to the location of trains along the track. In a meet and pass situation, one of the trains involved must be switched, for example, to the side track 20. This switching on to the side track 20 must be accomplished well enough in advance so that the train being switched to the side track is on the side track a sufficiently large length of time to permit a safety margin before the passage of the other train. The safety margin is necessarily related to the precision with which the location of both of the meeting trains is known. For example, if it is known that a train travelling thirty miles an hour is located somewhere in a block of track of twenty miles in length, it may be necessary to place an oncoming train onto a siding for at least two-thirds of an hour to await the passage of the other train.
To improve this situation a prior art system, called the Advanced Train Control System (ATCS) has been designed and includes transponders, locomotive interrogators, and radio communications. In the ATCS system, transponders are placed between or near the rails of the tracks at various points along the track both between control points such as switches and outside of the control points. Interrogators inside a locomotive activate a transponder by emitting a signal which is detected by the transponder. Each transponder contains a unique identification which is transmitted back to the locomotive while the locomotive and the transponder are in close proximity. The identification information may then be sent to a computer on board the locomotive and retransmitted via a communication system 34 to the central dispatch 30. Between the passage over sequential transponders, the computer on board the locomotive can use signals from its odometer to compute the locomotive's approximate location.
Note that in such a system, the odometer error provides an uncertainty as to the train's position along the track which increases as the train moves from one transponder to another and which is essentially zeroed when the train passes over the next transponder. By placing transponders sufficiently close together, the accuracy of the position information of the train may be kept within limits. Of course, the placement of transponders along the entire railway system may substantially increase maintenance costs as the transponders are relatively sensitive electronic elements in a harsh environment. In addition, if one transponder is out, the odometer error will continue to build providing additional uncertainty as to the knowledge of the position of the train.
The results of the meet and pass system in a railway system (a) in which the train's position within the system is not exactly known and (b) in which the engineers are running largely at their own discretion can be shown diagrammatically by "stringlines" that are commonly used by present railway systems to schedule and review the efficiency of schedules which have been executed.
With reference to FIG. 2, a stringline plots time along one axis and track miles or terminals along the other axis. The grid of FIG. 2, for example, runs from 5:00 a.m. on a first day until 11:00 a.m. on the following day and depicts movement along a track interconnecting Alpha and Rome with fifteen other control points in between. Within the grid formed by the time and miles, the movements of trains are plotted. As trains move in one direction, for example from Rome toward Alpha, the stringline for a train appears as a right diagonal.
Trains starting their travel in the opposite direction, i.e. from Alpha to Rome, appear on the stringline as a left diagonal. Where one train must be sided to await the passage of another, the stringline becomes horizontal as time passes by without movement of the sided train. For example, train 11 was sided at Bravo for nearly two hours awaiting the passage of the train 99 and train B2. Similarly train 88 was sided twice, once in Bravo to wait the passage of train F6 and a second time in Echo to await the passage of train G7.
As can be seen in the stringline chart of FIG. 2, a train can spend a substantial amount of time in sidings (train 88, for example, spent almost two hours of a five hour trip sitting at sidings).
If the position of the train along the track can be determined with an increased degree of precision, the need for trains to sit in sidings for a long period of time awaiting a meeting train may be reduced substantially. Note, for example, with reference to FIG. 2, the train 88 sat in the siding at Echo in excess of one hour prior to the passage of train G7. With more precise knowledge regarding the location of the trains, train G7 may have been able to continue to run on the track until the Hotel siding at which point it could be briefly sided to await the passage of train G7. Such a reduction in time spent in sidings would equate to a reduction in overall length of time needed to take any particular trip thus permitting greater throughput for the railway system and reducing such costs as engine idling, crews, and other time dependent factors.
In the present day railway system, there is often little active control over the progress of the train as it makes its way between terminals. Often, an engineer is given an authority merely to travel to a next control point, and the engineer uses his discretion, experience, and other subjective factors to move the train to the end of his authority. Often, the overall schedule utilized with such trains does not take into account the fact that the train may be sided for a period of time, i.e., the meet and passing was not put into the overall schedule.
Without explicitly planning for meets and passes, prior art train systems generally managed meet and pass situations on an ad hoc basis, as they arose, using the skill of the dispatcher to identify a potential meet and pass situation, make a judgement as to what siding should be used to allow the trains to pass, and to set the appropriate switches and signals to effect his analysis. Because, as explained above, the dispatcher had train position data which was not particularly precise, the dispatcher may conservatively and prematurely place a train in a siding, waiting an unnecessarily long period of time for the passage of the other train.
Moreover, the dispatcher generally controls only a portion of the rail system and his decision as to which train to put into a siding and which siding to use may be correct for the single meeting being handled. However, this "correct" decision may cause severe problems as the now-delayed train meets other trains during its subsequent operation under the control of other dispatchers.
In general, the entire railway system in the prior art was underutilized because of the uncertainties in the knowledge of the position of the trains along the track and because of the considerable discretion given to train engineers who determine the rates at which their trains progressed along the tracks. No matter how well a particular system of trains is scheduled, the schedule cannon be carried out in present systems because of the variability in performance of the various trains.
Scheduling systems in the prior art generally attempted to schedule trains in accordance with the manner in which the train system was operated. Thus, with some exceptions, the schedule was determined only on a "gross" data basis and did not take into account the specific characteristics of the trains which were being scheduled nor the fine details of the peculiarities of the track over which they were being scheduled.
Because system schedulers were generally used only to provide a "ballpark" schedule by which the train dispatcher would be guided, prior art scheduling systems did not generally identify conflicting uses of track, leaving such conflicts to be resolved by the regional dispatcher during the operation of the trains.
Desirably, a schedule should involve all elements or resources that are necessary to allow the train to move, these resources ranging from the assignment of personnel, locomotives and cars, to the determination of routes, the determination of which sidings will be used for which trains, as well as the precise merging of trains such that with appropriate pacing, the main lines can be used at capacity.
In the prior art, however, a number of difficulties have been associated with these types of schedules. These difficulties fell into several categories: (1) the immense computational requirements to schedule all these resources very precisely; (2) the inability to predict the actual dynamics of the train and its motion that would be required to safely handle a train over a given piece of track; and (3) a precise schedule was practically impossible to implement because there were no commands available to the crew on the train or directly to the locomotive subsystem that would cause it to follow any precise schedule that had been established. The movement of the train in present systems is generally within the prerogative of the engineer driving the train, within of course the limitations of the signalling system in part controlled by the dispatcher and in part by the occupancy of the track by other trains.
Previous attempts at performing a system wide optimization function which precipitated a very detailed schedule. Such attempts have not been successful due in part to the prohibitively large computational requirements for performing an analysis of the many variables. In fact, when the dimensions of the problem are taken into account, the number of permutations of solutions that are possible can represent an extremely large number. Consequently, exhaustive search algorithms to locate a best solution are impractical, and statistical search algorithms have not generally been effective in problems of this scope.
OVERVIEW OF THE PRESENT INVENTION
A first step in providing a precision control system is the use of an optimizing scheduler that will schedule all aspects of the rail system, taking into account the laws of physics, the policies of the railroad, the work rules of the personnel, the actual contractual terms of the contracts to the various customers and any boundary conditions or constraints which govern the possible solution or schedule. These boundary conditions can include things such as extrinsic traffic, (which in the U.S. is most often passenger traffic) hours of operation of some of the facilities, track maintenance, work rules, etc.
The combination of all these boundary conditions together with a figure of merit, if operated on by an appropriate optimizing scheduler, will result in a schedule which maximizes some figure of merit. The figure of merit most commonly used is the overall system cost in which case the most optimum solution is the minimum cost solution.
Since the constraints of such a system are variable, (i.e. likely to change from day to day) the present invention may be structured to facilitate the use of new boundary conditions or constraints, or new contractual terms. For example, if a contract has just been signed which involves a penalty clause of a certain magnitude for late delivery, then an optimizing scheduler should take that penalty into account and allow it to be incurred only when that becomes the lesser cost option of the various scheduling options available.
Upon determining a schedule, the present invention determines a movement plan which will carry out the schedule in a realizable and efficient manner. As a next step, the present invention incorporates into the schedule the very fine grain structure necessary to actually to control the movement of the train. Such fine grain structure may include assignment of personnel by name as well as the assignment of specific locomotives by number and may include the determination of the precise time or distance over time movement of the trains across the rail network. This precise movement of the trains may include all the details of train handling, power levels, curves, grades, wind and weather conditions such that the train is able to actually follow in detail the movement plan.
Finally, the present invention provides the movement plan to the persons or apparatus which will utilize the movement plan to operate and maintain the train system. In one embodiment, the movement plan can be provided merely to the dispatching personnel as a guide to their manual dispatching of trains and controlling of track forces. In another embodiment, the movement plan may be provided to the locomotives so that it can be implemented by the engineer or automatically by switchable actuation on the locomotive.
While there is particular utility in freight railway systems, it should be noted that the system and method of the present invention have applicability beyond a railway network. The disclosed system and method may be viewed as a transportation system in which in general the variable are being solved simultaneously as opposed to being solved sequentially. It is only with such a simultaneous solution that it is possible to achieve near optimality.
Another factor that influences the overall efficiency of the rail system, particularly the capacity of the given rail system, is the minimum spacing of the trains and the relative speed of the trains. In the prior art, the concept of the moving block operation has been proposed, with a moving block consisting of a guard band or forbidden zone that includes the train and a distance in front of every train that is roughly associated with the stopping distance for that train. This concept eliminates the fixed spacing that is associated with the current fixed block signalling systems.
However, the complexity of a moving block has been difficult to realize due to the fact that the stopping distance of a train is a function of many factors, including the mass of the train, the velocity of the train, the grade, the braking characteristics of the train and the environmental conditions. One benefit of the ability to perform planning which includes detailed evaluations and analysis of the dynamics of the movement of the train, is that the stopping distance of a specific train is a natural by-product. The use of this precision train control allows the computation of the moving block guard band and permits trains to be spaced as close as their stopping distances will allow. The net results is a significant increase in the total throughput capability of a given rail corridor.
The train movement planning system disclosed herein is hierarchial in nature in which the problem is abstracted to a relatively high level for the initial optimization process, and then the resulting course solution is mapped to a less abstract lower level for further optimization. This hierarchial process means that the solution space over which the search is occurring is always diminishing as additional detail is incorporated in the search for a solution. Furthermore, statistical processing is used at all of these levels to minimize the total computational load, making the overall process computationally feasible to implement.
An expert system has been used as a manager over these processes, and the expert system is also the tool by which various boundary conditions and constraints for the solution set are established. As an example, the movement of a passenger train through the network at a predetermined time may be set as one of the boundary conditions on the solution space, and other trains are moved in the optimum manner around that constraint. As another example, the scheduling of work to be performed on a particular section of the track at a particular time may be set as a boundary condition and trains may be moved around that constraint in an optimum manner.
The use of an expert system in this capacity permits the user to supply the rules to be placed in the solution process. Consequently, every change from work rule changes to contractual changes can be incorporated by simply writing or changing a set of rules.
In some cases it can be desirable to allow the optimization process To schedule activities which normally are precluded by fixed constraints. For example, the railway maintenance activity could be considered a prescheduled constraint around which the train schedule should be moved. On the other hand, the constraint that is put into the rule base may be that so many hours of maintenance activity on a given section of track must be performed and that the cost per hour of that operation is more at night than in the day. Under those conditions, the scheduler may be allowed to schedule that activity in concert with scheduling the movement of the trains such that the overall cost of operation is minimized.
A very important aspect with the use of precision scheduling is the ability to handle exceptions when they occur. The most common problem with fixed schedules that are set up far in advance is that anomalies occur which cause elements of the network to get off schedule, and those off-scheduled elements will ripple through the system causing other elements to get off-schedule. For example, the late arrival of a train on one trip may cause a locomotive to be unavailable for a planned second trip, and the lateness of the second trip will cause again the locomotive to not be available for a third trip. Thus ripple effects are common.
A key element of the globally scheduled system with fine grain control as provided by the present invention is that it has continuous monitoring of anomalies as they occur, and allows rescheduling to compensate for the presence of these anomalies.
This exception handling capability begins with the anomaly being reported to an exception handling logic element which determines at what level the anomaly may be resolved. For example, a given train which has deviated from its plan in excess of a predetermined tolerance could be an anomaly that could be corrected simply by small changes to the adjacent trains. On the other hand, an anomaly of a larger magnitude such as a derailment which fouled a given track would cause a large scale rescheduling including use of alternate routes. Such large scale rescheduling would be moved up to a global or system wide planning level which would permit a reoptimization of the plan around that major anomaly.
There is a temporal aspect to this rescheduling activity in that the anomaly being reported must be acted on immediately for safety reasons, and then it must be acted on for short term optimization, and then it may be acted on for global rescheduling. Thus, the anomaly resolution or exception handling process can be involved in various levels of a hierarchial planning system in time sequence until the anomaly is fully resolved.
In the existing situation, the most common effect of an anomaly in present systems is to negate large portions of a predetermined schedule. In general in the freight railroad business, major perturbations to the schedule are not recovered for at least 24 hours. Unfortunately, anomalies happen with great frequency, some of them as small as loss of one locomotive in a three locomotive consist, which causes that train to have two thirds the power for which it had been scheduled. Or anomalies are simply that the engineer has not attempted, or been unable, to stay on schedule. Without regard to the cause, they occur with great frequency and as a result most freight railroads do not maintain any sort of close coupling with predetermined schedules. The performance against schedules is often so bad that crew changes are required to prevent unscheduled stops due to crews exceeding maximum allowed work time.
In the optimization process it is important to understand the total scope of what is necessary to actually achieve the minimum operating cost. Very often optimization plans are based on the concept of priority where certain elements of the operation (certain trains or certain types of shipments) are given a higher priority than others because of the fact that they are considered to be more time critical.
In a true optimization technique the notion of priority per se should be implicit but not explicit. The reason is that a given train, although of high priority in the sense that it must meet a deadline (or the impact of missing a deadline is significant), may not generate any additional revenue if it is early. To say it another way, being early may not be an advantage, but being late may cause a considerable negative impact. In a true cost optimization plan, priority must be tempered and the priority function must be delayed within the "don't be late" constraint.
One of the fundamental principals in optimization is that each element of the operation have associated with it some incremental cost in the criteria being optimized. Incremental cost can be fuel cost, hourly cost of personnel, hourly use cost of locomotives or hourly use cost times distance travelled of locomotives. The actual incremental cost factor should go into the optimization plan, including penalties.
The plan must include nonlinearities in the incremental costs to allow for the fact that at certain points in the delivery time schedule the actual cost will either go up as a step function or as a slope. As an example where there is no advantage associated with an early delivery, the failure to deliver a given cargo might be a $1000 fixed penalty if not delivered on time and an additional $1000 per hour demurrage charge if it causes a ship to stay in port.
A true optimization plan is one whereby the variables including the assignment of resources are juggled such that the overall cost is minimized. An example would be two trains that were moving down a track towards a destination, one of which was four hours late and one of which was one half-hour late, with both trains having a significant but fixed penalty for being late. The logical solution would be to refrain from doing anything for the four hour late train because of the impossibility of ever meeting its schedule, and to give the half-hour late train every opportunity to recover the half-hour and avoid the penalty of being late. In such a scenario, the four late train may be given a much lower priority than a bulk commodity train since the bulk commodity train may involve more resources being used.
In the present invention, it is the global or the overall optimization for cost which controls rather than predetermined priorities, with priorities used only as cost factors. The total cost includes the operating costs such as fuel and rolling stock utilization as well as the delivery costs caused by contractual terms and commitments. Only when all of these cost factors are taken into account is it possible to come up with a true minimum cost plan. In the known prior systems, no such plan is possible because no technique is available which actually computes the incremental cost associated with each of the decisions. As a result, suboptimal plans are often generated based on the intuition of dispatchers and planners.
Partial Listing Of Objects
Accordingly, it is an object of the present invention to obviate the above deficiencies of known systems and to provide a novel system and method for scheduling the movement of a number of objects through a multipath delivery system.
It is another object of the present invention to provide a novel system and method for optimizing the movement of a number of objects through a multipath delivery system.
It is still another object of the present invention to provide a novel system and method in which a detailed movement plan is bound to the control of a delivery system.
It is still a further object of the present invention to provide a novel system and method to operate a delivery system according to a schedule such that the deviation from the schedule at any moment in time is minimized.
It is another object of the present invention to provide a novel system and method to manage the movement of carriers in a delivery system such that local conflicts are resolved with reference to the effects of such resolution on the entire system.
It is a further object of the present invention to provide a novel system and method in which conflicts in the use of system resources are reduced by managing the extent of the periods of such conflict.
It is yet a further object of the present invention to provide a novel system and method in which conflicts in the use of resources are reduced by closely scheduling and operating the use of such resources.
It is still another object of the present invention to provide a novel system and method in which the delays in a delivery system are reduced by providing a detailed and realizable plan of movement and providing a means for carrying out the detailed and realizable plan.
It is yet another object of the present invention to provide a novel system and method for providing a plan for the movement of a number of objects through a multipath delivery system which is physically attainable by the objects being moved, and which as a result can be used to control the movement of those objects.
It is yet still another object of the present invention to provide a novel system and method for providing a plan for the movement of a number of objects through a multipath delivery system in which the objects being moved are converted to time intervals for processing.
In another aspect, the present invention provides a novel method and apparatus for optimization which utilizes different levels of abstraction in the course scheduling and fine planning stages.
It is another object of the present invention to provide a novel system and method for optimizing where the amount of detail in the movement being optimized in inversely related to the solution space.
It is yet another object of the present invention to provide a novel system and method for optimizing using a rule based inference engine to provide constraints for a constraint based inference engine.
It is yet still another object of the present invention to provide a novel system and method for optimizing using the combination of rule based and constraint based inference engines in developing a movement plan, with further optimization using a procedure based inference engine.
It is yet a further object of the present invention to provide a novel system and method for optimizing with consideration of both operational and delivery costs.
In another aspect, it is an object of the present invention to provide a novel model and method of modeling capable of different layers of abstraction.
In another aspect, it is an object of the present invention to provide a novel computer and method of computing which combines simulated annealing and branch and bound techniques in developing solutions to computational problems.
It is another object of the present invention to provide a novel computer and method of computing with intelligent focusing of simulated annealing processes.
These and many other objects and advantages of the present invention will be readily apparent to one skilled in the art to which the invention pertains from a perusal of the claims, the appended drawings, and the following detailed description of the preferred embodiments.